Rumsfeld to Troops: Deal with it

[5que]

Title stolen from Keith Olbermann

Troops put tough questions to Rumsfeld (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/)
Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly three years after the war in Iraq.

“Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?” Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

“We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north,” Wilson said after asking again.

Rumsfeld replied that, “You go to war with the Army you have,” not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.
G-D, this pisses me off. Why can't we properly support the troops YOU put in there. I know we've been through reasons here and over at GD (not being prepared, not enough troops, being greeted with flowers, etc.) but it just infuriates me to get "support our troops" shoved down our throats by the very government officials who won't.

[Loach]

I've been in the Army for 16 years. That's from Bush to Clinton to Bush. There was never any thought that every vehicle needed to be armored. From the lowest Private to the highest General, no one ever thought that every HUMMV needed to have a full armor package. Most of my Army career we used the CUCV, you might know it as the Chevy S10. No armor there. To think that Rumsfeld or anyone else should have somehow know what no one else predicted is a little ridiculous. Armored HUMMVs are being produced at the highest rate that can be managed at this time. You try to predict what might happen but in the end " You go to war with the Army you have," and then adjust to the situation.

[treis]

Bush really needs to put the kibosh on Rumsfield's public speaking. He has a bad habit of inserting his foot into his mouth:

Mr. Rumsfeld seemed taken aback by the question and a murmur began spreading through the ranks before he silenced them. "Now settle down, settle down," he said. "Hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning and I'm gathering my thoughts here."

:shakes head:

[gobear]

Support the troops? Yeah, right.

Tell me again why the Pubs aren't fools for voting for this gang?

[vibrotronica]

His lies and incompetence put them there for no good reason while genuine threats to the Repulblic are allowed to fester, and then he had the bloody nerve to tell them "tough titties!" and fly home to a warm bed.

And really, how bad does it have to get for an enlisted man actually says something like that to the Secretary of Defense? The soldier's remark could not have been made lightly.

[World Eater]

Gobear, 5que composed his thread faster then I did, because it didn't exist when I clicked new thread. It was also closed before I could request to close it.

Just FYI

[UncleBeer]

Armor? Fuck that. Why don't we just unmanned vehicles and not send any troops? I wanna do my fightin' from behind a joystick and a 60" plasma monitor inside an NBC hardened pillbox . . . on Antigua.

C'mon guys. There are limits to the level of safety that can be guaranteed to soldiers - both technological and budgetary. If you gotta have absolute assurance that every troop has to be supremely protected from injury, you might as well not have a military.

[World Eater]

C'mon guys. There are limits to the level of safety that can be guaranteed to soldiers - both technological and budgetary.

If the fucking guys need armor get them their fucking armor. Where the hell did that 87 billion go anyway?

[Loach]

If the fucking guys need armor get them their fucking armor. Where the hell did that 87 billion go anyway?

It's being spent on armor. The factory is working at max capacity and has been for some time. It's easy enough to find that information.

[minty green]

C'mon guys. There are limits to the level of safety that can be guaranteed to soldiers - both technological and budgetary. If you gotta have absolute assurance that every troop has to be supremely protected from injury, you might as well not have a military.Spc. Wilson did not ask for "absolute assurance that every troop has to be supremely protected from injury." He asked 'Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" and asserted that "We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north." Seems like a reasonable inquiry, given the circumstances.

[Liberal]

C'mon guys. There are limits to the level of safety that can be guaranteed to soldiers - both technological and budgetary. If you gotta have absolute assurance that every troop has to be supremely protected from injury, you might as well not have a military.I'm not sure you quite understand how satisfied the left might be with that proposition.

[Maeglin]

Armor? Fuck that. Why don't we just unmanned vehicles and not send any troops? I wanna do my fightin' from behind a joystick and a 60" plasma monitor inside an NBC hardened pillbox . . . on Antigua.

C'mon guys. There are limits to the level of safety that can be guaranteed to soldiers - both technological and budgetary. If you gotta have absolute assurance that every troop has to be supremely protected from injury, you might as well not have a military.

Well shit, UncleBeer, considering how much we are spending (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1204/120704cdam2.htm) on unmanned aircraft (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009151), it looks like our military is headed in just that direction.

So remind me again why our soldiers are inadequately equipped?

This reminds me of that dumbass movie "Enemy at the Gates." Remember the opening scene?

The one with the rifle shoots. The one without, follows him. When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots.

I am sure Stalin said pretty much the same thing to his troops. "What, now you are expecting rifles?"

[Binarydrone]

It's being spent on armor. The factory is working at max capacity and has been for some time. It's easy enough to find that information.

But apparently infinity difficult to cite.

[Mr. Moto]

Need I point out, Maeglin, that that same Red Army beat the Wehrmacht back to Berlin, and occupied Eastern Europe for close to fifty years?

Good soldiers and sailors, and airmen and Marines, bitch constantly about the amount of supplies they have. They then go out and make do with what they have.

In the case of the American military, that often achieves quite impressive results.

[Loach]

But apparently infinity difficult to cite.

Yeah the front page of CNN.com is very hard to find. I'm not going to bother, do it yourself.

[Maeglin]

Need I point out, Maeglin, that that same Red Army beat the Wehrmacht back to Berlin, and occupied Eastern Europe for close to fifty years?

Good soldiers and sailors, and airmen and Marines, bitch constantly about the amount of supplies they have. They then go out and make do with what they have.

In the case of the American military, that often achieves quite impressive results.

So the moral of the story is, Mr. Moto, that great success on a shoestring is possible if human life is cheap and in nearly unlimited supply?

If this were the case, how do you explain our paltry troop deployment in Iraq? The Red Army threw millions of meatshields against the Wehrmacht.

[lno]

Armor? Fuck that. Why don't we just unmanned vehicles and not send any troops? I wanna do my fightin' from behind a joystick and a 60" plasma monitor inside an NBC hardened pillbox . . . on Antigua.Great, now every kid who has read Ender's Game and plays America's Army will start brewing conspiracy theories.

[Maus Magill]

When I heard this story this morning, two things popped into mind:

1) How bad does moral have to be for the soldiers to be openly asking the brass such questions?

2) Someone's life has just become a world of shit.

[Binarydrone]

Yeah the front page of CNN.com is very hard to find. I'm not going to bother, do it yourself.
Well, I just checked and am not seeing that information (although there are references to "doing things as fast as we can" in the story about Rumsfeld).

I do understand, though, why you might get your back up a little. After all, it is not as if a precedent exists on this message board for asking folks to back up claims that they make.

[Banquet Bear]

Yeah the front page of CNN.com is very hard to find. I'm not going to bother, do it yourself.

...looks at CNN front page...

No, can't see it...

[World Eater]

Yeah the front page of CNN.com is very hard to find. I'm not going to bother, do it yourself.

Show us the cite funboy, or shut up. It ain't on no frontpage.

[lno]

Oh, for Christ's sake. It's the leading article on CNN.com. You know, the big picture of that schmuck Rumsfeld holding his hands up and likely saying, "I caught a terrorist this big..."

Rumsfeld faces thorny questions from troops (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/index.html)

Rumsfeld said armored military vehicles have been brought to the region "from all over the world, from where they're not needed to a place they're needed."

"Something like 400 [vehicles] a month are being done," he said. "And it's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money. ... It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it."

[World Eater]

they can only do 400 a month? Utter bullshit.

[Mr. Moto]

You could, also, read the link in the OP:

Rumsfeld replied that, “You go to war with the Army you have,” not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

[Binarydrone]

Oh, for Christ's sake. It's the leading article on CNN.com. You know, the big picture of that schmuck Rumsfeld holding his hands up and likely saying, "I caught a terrorist this big..."

I suppose, but that is not the same as the claim that "the 87 billion is being spent on armor and that the factory is churning it out at max capacity, and has been for some time". Given a claim that specific, I naturally assumed that I would be linked to a story. Perhaps featuring some beleaguered, but patriotic factory worked recounting tales of overtime worked in service of our troops. I hope that you can see that the original claim was a bit misleading.

[lno]

they can only do 400 a month? Utter bullshit.Okay, funboy, what do you think the manufacturers should be able to produce? Real world numbers, too, not some fantastic "They should make everything perfect forever" claims.

Any cites? Any evidence? You must have worked for a defense contractor before, right? Heavy industry? You're involved in the procurement cycle?

Of course, it's much more fun to assume Machiavellian machinations behind the scenes, and Rumsfeld and Bush lighting stogies and gloating about the soldiers they're deliberately underequipping. Hell, if Bush had done that, I might have been tempted to vote for him.

I suppose, but that is not the same as the claim that "the 87 billion is being spent on armor and that the factory is churning it out at max capacity, and has been for some time". Given a claim that specific, I naturally assumed that I would be linked to a story. Perhaps featuring some beleaguered, but patriotic factory worked recounting tales of overtime worked in service of our troops. I hope that you can see that the original claim was a bit misleading.Oh, I fully agree. Rumsfeld's quote isn't as detailed as I'd like. I'd like to have a representative from the manufacturers explaining how production lines are at maximum capacity, and they're building more factories to try to meet demand. My point (admittedly overly snarky) is that the article was front and center.

[Harborwolf]

Well, I'm just going to boringly stand in the middle on this.

Part of the blame on this lies in the planning. Fast and light is a good way to fight battles, but sucks all to hell when it comes to nation building and prolonged fights. It seems that even since the beginning, those planning this mess have let optimism get the best of them. It's a lousy way to run a war. The fact that a soldier had to ask where the armor is speaks of how badly this was planned and how poorly it's being run.

And yeah, what Rumsfeld said was entirely idiotic. Must be what happens when he tries to give a straight answer. He should stick to his normal verbal gymnastics. Makes the press conferences much more fun.

However, what he said doesn't seem to be the "fuck off" as much as some here are making it out to be. Armor doesn't grow on trees and the munition makers elves have since retired to Orlando. The armor takes time to produce. It's coming. They will have armor. Life would be easier if we could pull it out of thin air, but we can't. It would be easier if we could pull the troops back instantly and things would be fine in Iraq until they come back with the armor, but we can't.

It may sound terribly cold, but they will have to deal with it until we can get the supplies to them. Ya'll keep jerking your knees like this your shins will fly off :p

[Binarydrone]

Perhaps we should scrounge through our landfills and send the scrap metal over. I bet we have better garbage here than they do in Iraq.

[Loach]

When I heard this story this morning, two things popped into mind:

1) How bad does moral have to be for the soldiers to be openly asking the brass such questions?

2) Someone's life has just become a world of shit.

1) Anytime you let Joe Snuffy get on a mike in front of a general or high muckety muck he is going to ask questions. Most of them are going to be dumb questions that could have been answered by his platoon sergeant. Someone asked Rumsfeld about a pay problem. I'm sure his chain of command never heard of it. It happens all the time. I remember in Hackworth's book About Face he talks about an inspection by Eisenhower in Trieste when he complained to the Supreme Allied Commander that they were getting too much Spam.

2) For the questions that have been played on TV, probably not. For some of the other questions that should have been brought to the chain of command, probably so.

[World Eater]

So with all the industrial might of our country and 87 fucking billion bucks, we can only armor 13 humvees a day? You need me to explain why this is fucked up?

Hire some more friggin welders. Ship the plates to Iraq and let guys over there equip concurrently. There are probably a million things that could be done differently.

What a load of shit.

[lno]

Perhaps we should scrounge through our landfills and send the scrap metal over. I bet we have better garbage here than they do in Iraq.I've been recycling these cans of Diet Mountain Dew, but maybe a care package would be a better idea...

I should organize a collection drive at the office.

[Binarydrone]

So with all the industrial might of our country and 87 fucking billion bucks, we can only armor 13 humvees a day? You need me to explain why this is fucked up?...
Yea, but these are probably Union jobs so that is probably a lot of the problem. I think that we should probably outsource this job, you know, let the free market handle things. It really is the only way.

[LordVor]

The armor takes time to produce. It's coming. They will have armor. Life would be easier if we could pull it out of thin air, but we can't. It would be easier if we could pull the troops back instantly and things would be fine in Iraq until they come back with the armor, but we can't

I understand that, but it still doesn't answer the question. The question wasn't "when we will have armer", the question was "why don't we have armer now?". The only two reasonable answers to that question are "Because you don't need it" and "Because we didn't think you would need it."

I have no doubt that the truth is that they didn't think that the troops would need it. But the whole "you go with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" thing makes it sound more like the other answer.

From the lowest Private to the highest General, no one ever thought that every HUMMV needed to have a full armor package.

Apparently, there's at least one specialist who thinks so.

-lv

[Loach]

So with all the industrial might of our country and 87 fucking billion bucks, we can only armor 13 humvees a day? You need me to explain why this is fucked up?

Hire some more friggin welders. Ship the plates to Iraq and let guys over there equip concurrently. There are probably a million things that could be done differently.

What a load of shit.

Come back with facts. Armored HUMMVs are not armored with steel. They are armored with composite materials that you can't just weld on. It takes time to manufacture them. It can't be done in any garage. The after market steel plates are being produced in the field. Not as good as the factory mods but pretty effective.

[rjung]

Just remember, Rumsfeld is one of the Cabinet folks who aren't getting the boot...

("You go to war with the Army you have"? Tough talk from someone who'll be out of Iraq before the week's over)

[Binarydrone]

I've been recycling these cans of Diet Mountain Dew, but maybe a care package would be a better idea...
Dude, that is fucking brilliant! Think about the branding possibilities. It would be like product placement in movies, only with death! We could have the Soda companies underwrite the war.

[ElvisL1ves]

Worth a read. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2095705/)The need appears to be significant, however. One congressional staffer told me that Iraq and Afghanistan currently have about 1,600 up-armored Humvees—meaning there's a need for 2,600 more. And according to a recent story on the military's Army New Service wire, a total of about 1,000 armor kits have been shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. That would leave about 7,000 to go. What's more, the Pentagon's requirements have been subject to constant upward revision, as it apparently realizes that just about all its vehicles in Iraq are subject to attack.
...
The White House doesn't appear to be helping. Its proposed budget for 2005 includes funds for 818 up-armored Humvees, which may or may not be enough, depending on whether the military's latest estimate of its needs holds steady and how many up-armored Humvees are already in the pipeline. (An Army spokesman said he wasn't sure of the number.) As for the thousands for armor kits the military says it needs, the proposed budget includes exactly zero dollars for them.

It's been two years now. Yes, there's a lot of bureaucratic crap in normal DOD procurement procedures, but there are means to short-cycle them that obviously haven't been used. The fancy form-fitting aftermarket specials aren't necessary; the improvised steel fabrications that soldiers have been making themselves, or having made stateside by Joe's Welding and such, are a lot better than the nothing most of them have, and they can be had very quickly.

There is no abatement in the rate of attacks via homemade land mines, it's actually increasing, and there is realistically nothing a soldier can do to avoid those no matter how courageous he is. Telling him "You just deal with it" is an insulting way to say "I don't feel like dealing with it myself, just fuck off and quit bothering me."

[ElvisL1ves]

"You go to war with the Army you have"? Tough talk from someone who'll be out of Iraq before the week's over.And "hppes" the rest will be out in the next four years. That would make this war longer than WW2. Maybe. And with success not at all assured, to say the least.

[World Eater]

Come back with facts. Armored HUMMVs are not armored with steel. They are armored with composite materials that you can't just weld on. It takes time to manufacture them. It can't be done in any garage. The after market steel plates are being produced in the field. Not as good as the factory mods but pretty effective.

IIRC they're actually velcroed on, which makes it about as easy as it gets. Put the steel on until composite replacements are ready. Up manufacture of composite replacements. Don't give me any bullshit excuses I can punch holes through em no problem

[Kalhoun]

I've been in the Army for 16 years. That's from Bush to Clinton to Bush. There was never any thought that every vehicle needed to be armored. From the lowest Private to the highest General, no one ever thought that every HUMMV needed to have a full armor package. Most of my Army career we used the CUCV, you might know it as the Chevy S10. No armor there. To think that Rumsfeld or anyone else should have somehow know what no one else predicted is a little ridiculous. Armored HUMMVs are being produced at the highest rate that can be managed at this time. You try to predict what might happen but in the end " You go to war with the Army you have," and then adjust to the situation.
Well, considering we fought over there during the original gulf war, they should have known. I mean, hostility toward Americans isn't exactly new to the region.

My husband was a combat marine in Vietnam. He sort of tried to defend Rummie (tell 'em to join the armored division!!!) but fercrissakes...it's not like we don't have the money to outfit these guys properly.

[Maeglin]

Defense spin sure is fast (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/n10292004_2004102903.html) .

[Loach]

I understand that, but it still doesn't answer the question. The question wasn't "when we will have armer", the question was "why don't we have armer now?". The only two reasonable answers to that question are "Because you don't need it" and "Because we didn't think you would need it."

I have no doubt that the truth is that they didn't think that the troops would need it. But the whole "you go with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" thing makes it sound more like the other answer.



Apparently, there's at least one specialist who thinks so.

-lv

Acquaint yourself with the difference between past tense and present tense. GHW Bush didn't armor all HUMMVs. Bill Clinton had 8 years to armor all HUMMVs but didn't. You mean they didn't concieve of a time they might need it? You mean that when Bill Clinton was bombing Iraqi targets he didn't make contingency plans to invade Iraq? What he did and he still didn't armor them? No I am not blaming Bill Clinton but it would make just as much sense. You try to plan for what might happen and then you adjust to the situation. It would be better if every vehicle was armored. It would be better if troop strength was at pre-Clinton levels. They are not. You make the fight with what you have.

[Loach]

Defense spin sure is fast (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/n10292004_2004102903.html) .

Damn 29 Oct, that is fast.

[lno]

Defense spin sure is fast (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/n10292004_2004102903.html) .From that link:In addition to increased armor protection, up-armored Humvees feature more rugged suspension systems able to handle the added weight and ballistic- resistant glass. They also include air conditioners that enable crews to operate with the windows up, even in stifling temperatures.Shit, we send our guys to the desert and their rides don't even have AC? I bet they have to buy aftermarket CD adapters to plug into the tape deck and cigarette lighter so they can play Wagner.

[Johnny Bravo]

It's not just the humvees, either. My roomate told me about going to a dump and harvesting metal from a busted air conditioner because his armor vest didn't have the plates it was supposed to.

[Maeglin]

Damn 29 Oct, that is fast.

You're right, dude, I mistook today's date at the top for the article date. D'oh.

[manhattan]

Worth a read. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2095705/)
No it's not. It's dated, and incorrect in any event. Among the more glaring errors I encountered before concluding it wasn't worth the time to finish is that AM General does not uparmor its own HMMWVs. Whether it's done at original production or in the aftermarket, up-armoring is done by O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, a subsidiary of Armor Holdings (NYSE: AH). They do the field kits, too.

Armor announced in September that they had received a contract which will allow them to increase production of up-armored HMMWVs to 450/month. (cite (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=77648&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=615385&highlight=))

Because of increased production, they've lowered the price -- less overhead per vehicle and all that.

O'Gara was chosen because they had expertise in up-armoring regular cars. In the military, it used to be either a truck or not a truck -- say, a Bradley. The changeover to HMMWVs for regular combat purposes is new. O'Gara had a long history of up-armoring limos and SUVs for various muckety-mucks around the world and the expertise transferred nicely.

[Maus Magill]

I bet they have to buy aftermarket CD adapters to plug into the tape deck and cigarette lighter so they can play Wagner.

I first read that as Winger.

If these guys were listening to Winger, would they deserve armor? :D

[Loach]

IIRC they're actually velcroed on, which makes it about as easy as it gets. Put the steel on until composite replacements are ready. Up manufacture of composite replacements. Don't give me any bullshit excuses I can punch holes through em no problem

You remember incorrectly. The Armored HMMWV M1109 M1114 have an armored body. It is not velcroed on, it is the entire vehicle. You may be thinking of after market kits they are providing to the non-armored variants.


Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, told the AP that, as far as he knows, vehicles going to Iraq from Kuwait's Camp Buehring have at least "Level 3" armor. These vehicles would have locally fabricated armor for side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against blasts through floorboards, according to the AP.

Those are the ones being used for transport in "safe" areas. The only HMMWVs I have seen on patrol duty are the full up ones. It would be nice to have the improved version for everyone but that isn't going to happen right away. Previous doctrine had the M1114 being used in a scout role. The doctrine has changed. Just like doctrine changes with every conflict. Unfortunately the MRK1 Cyrstal Ball has never worked properly.

[lno]

Whether it's done at original production or in the aftermarket, up-armoring is done by O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, a subsidiary of Armor Holdings (NYSE: AH). They do the field kits, too.Damn. Look at the two year price history (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?pg=qu&sid=5924&osymb=AH&time=2yr&uf=0&x=22&y=9) of Armor Holdings. Remind me why I didn't put my retirement savings into defense contractors at the start of this damnfool idealistic crusade?

[RickJay]

Need I point out, Maeglin, that that same Red Army beat the Wehrmacht back to Berlin, and occupied Eastern Europe for close to fifty years?
Of course, by the time they beat Germany they were arguably the best supplied army in the history of the world, supported by an armed services where logistics officers were considered the peers of combat officers and a wartime economy producing more vehcicles and gear than Germany could possibly dream of. There was a direct correlation between their skill at supplying the troops and the results in the field.

Now, having said that, you don't just drive down to the local Target and buy vehicle armor. It's hard stuff to make, and you can't do a slapdash effort or it won't work and people will die.

I've never heard of an army with the doctrine that EVERY vehicle should be armored. Armored vehicles are for use in combat, not just driving around. They're expensive and armor weight is directly proportional to the likelihood of the vehicle breaking down, so if you don't need it you should not have it. If the US Army is in a position in Iraq where every jeep and hummer is at serious risk of coming under fire, that speaks to problems with the strategy, not the equipment.

Good soldiers and sailors, and airmen and Marines, bitch constantly about the amount of supplies they have. They then go out and make do with what they have.
The absolute face is this: there is usually no amount of gear that a soldier will consider sufficient. If you give a general 100 tanks, he'll want 200. If you give him 200, he'll say he really needed 400. More is always better. Unless the soldier is personally responsible for budgeting, it's a free resource to him.

[Cervaise]

Dja see the clip of McCain commenting on Rumsfeld's continuing stint as Sec'y of Defense? He said something like, "He's the guy, so we'll work with him, of course." The interviewer said, "That doesn't sound like a vote of confidence." And McCain said, "No, it's not."

Might as well just come right out with it: "What do you want me to say? We all know, the man's incompetent."

And he is.

(There was also the clip of Wolfowitz saying before Congress in 1993, something like, "I can't imagine it'd take more troops to occupy and secure Iraq than it would to overthrow it..." More gross incompetence. I can't believe people are still defending these chuckleheads.)

[LordVor]

Acquaint yourself with the difference between past tense and present tense. GHW Bush didn't armor all HUMMVs. Bill Clinton had 8 years to armor all HUMMVs but didn't. You mean they didn't concieve of a time they might need it? You mean that when Bill Clinton was bombing Iraqi targets he didn't make contingency plans to invade Iraq? What he did and he still didn't armor them? No I am not blaming Bill Clinton but it would make just as much sense. You try to plan for what might happen and then you adjust to the situation. It would be better if every vehicle was armored. It would be better if troop strength was at pre-Clinton levels. They are not. You make the fight with what you have.

It would be better if Bush, Rumsfield, etc al, came up with a strategy for the war that didn't involve needing more armored vehicles than they had. Or realized that this was going to be an occupation, and that the army wasn't equipped to occupy a foreign country, so they better not do it unless they can get help from allies who are properly equipped.

See the differect between Bush and Clinton now?

[Danalan]

The problem is that there are more explosive devices being deployed than anybody with any authority expected. We know that incompetence resulted in 380 tons of high explosive being taken from under our noses. It's a combination of incompetence -- failure to provide for a worst case scenario, plus devastating strategic errors.

[Loach]

Perhaps featuring some beleaguered, but patriotic factory worked recounting tales of overtime worked in service of our troops. I hope that you can see that the original claim was a bit misleading.

Sorry forgot to answer that. From the article cited earlier, the one dated 29 OCT 04:

During a recent visit to Letterkenny Army Depot, Pa., one facility producing the kits, Motsek said he was particularly impressed with the motivation of the workers he saw. One worker, who operated a laser-cutting machine that cuts the steel used in the kits, hadn't taken a single day off — not weekends, not holidays – since starting the job seven months earlier.

"No sir, I have a mission to do" was the employee's response, Motsek said.

Does that count?

[Loach]

It would be better if Bush, Rumsfield, etc al, came up with a strategy for the war that didn't involve needing more armored vehicles than they had. Or realized that this was going to be an occupation, and that the army wasn't equipped to occupy a foreign country, so they better not do it unless they can get help from allies who are properly equipped.

See the differect between Bush and Clinton now?

Not my point. I have problems with the overall stragedy. That's not the point. I am not trying to make Clinton the boogeyman (because I don't think he was) but you asked. Clinton bombed Iraqi targets multiple times. Clinton deployed troops to Kuwait several times as a show of force and to back down Saddam. Clinton understood that Saddam was a problem that he may have had to deal with in a premanent way. So do you think he made contingency plans? Of course. Did some of these plans involve the invasion of Iraq? Of course. Did he armor all the HMMWVs in case invasion became necessary? No. His crystal ball wasn't working either. Even after Somalia he didn't have the HMMWVs armored. Yes I see a difference but they both (or the generals under them) came to the same conclusion about armored HMMWVs. Now the doctrine has changed and the problem is being fixed as fast as possible.

[LordVor]

Did some of these plans involve the invasion of Iraq? Of course. Did he armor all the HMMWVs in case invasion became necessary? No. His crystal ball wasn't working either.

Not my point, either. Did his plans involve using unarmored vehicles in situations that called for armored vehicles? You have no freaken clue if "his crystal ball wasn't working properly" or if "his strategy didn't require as many US armored vehicles". The only fact is that Bush and Rumsfield's plan DOES require more armored vehicles than we currently have.

-lv

[Homebrew]

(in that other thread)]Dude, there's an identical thread right below yours. Did we we need two threads on this topic?Dude? Bear or not, you're getting your card punched for that.

[Binarydrone]

...Does that count?
Sure though, again, the impression that I had from the original post to which I replied was that there was a specific story on the front page of CNN dealing with the manufacture of armor and the like. Not that it was mentioned in another story.

[Reeder]

[quote]The IDF only seems more entrenched since then. Armored Humvees and tanks lined the roads..[quote]


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098771481003&p=1006688055060

[The Great Sun Jester]

2) Someone's life has just become a world of shit.
This is what startled me most. It's right up there with "Now just one damned minute, Drill Sergeant!" It's something you say immediately before you wish you'd never been borne. This guy's got rocks the size of churchbells...whether in his pants or in his head is less clear.

[Tuckerfan]

So with all the industrial might of our country and 87 fucking billion bucks, we can only armor 13 humvees a day? You need me to explain why this is fucked up?

Hire some more friggin welders. Ship the plates to Iraq and let guys over there equip concurrently. There are probably a million things that could be done differently.

What a load of shit.Except that our industrial might isn't what it once was. The very folks who're needed right now are the ones who had their jobs outsourced to other countries since the Reagan Administration. Add to that, the fact that the "combat" portions of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have lasted a couple of months at best, thanks to the "videogame" nature of modern warfare, and people don't see the reason to invest in starting up companies to take advantage of the war effort. Nevermind that folks are still dying in both those places and that the gear is needed desperately, when the war's off the front pages after a couple of months, people don't care anymore. Besides, if we do manage to beat the terrorists and the insurgents, the first thing the US will do is cut back on it's defense spending. Which means all those people will be out of work, and those companies which investors poured billions of dollars into will be out of business.

Then there's the fact that a lot of schools have been cutting out their vocational training programs, so the workforce with the necessary skills are getting older, and the number of folks filling the ranks is growing smaller (and the number of available jobs is even smaller still, since no one wants to hire extra employees for a short period of time, especially if the training costs are high [which they can be]).

Talk all you want about defense contracts being a gravy train, but as an employee for a military subcontractor, I can tell you that we're nearly bankrupt, alot of our competitors are gone, and those that are left, like us, are begging for work from anybody they can get it.

[Evil Captor]

The problem is that there are more explosive devices being deployed than anybody with any authority expected. We know that incompetence resulted in 380 tons of high explosive being taken from under our noses. It's a combination of incompetence -- failure to provide for a worst case scenario, plus devastating strategic errors.

Once again, goes back to the well-publicized and totally anticipated falilure to secure the Iraqi weapons depots, such as the one where we lost, what was it, 300 tons of high explosives? Once again, bad planning on Rumsfeld's part, bad planning that was totally anticipated. Going to war with Iraq was a stupid idea, doing it the way Rumsfeld did it was FUCKING MORONIC!!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad:

[Mr. Moto]

[quote]The IDF only seems more entrenched since then. Armored Humvees and tanks lined the roads..[quote]


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098771481003&p=1006688055060

What the hell is this supposed to imply, Reeder? That the evil Jews are controlling where the armor goes?

Armour of America was recently acquired by Arotech, which has extensive armoring operations of its own. One of these is an Israeli subsidiary, MDT Protective Industries.

Israel has its own military budget and its own need for armored Humvees. It's hardly surprising that they'd use a domestic contractor to provide this service. And there's little the U.S. can do about that, except to perhaps make use of the same firm.

http://www.homelanddefensestocks.com/Companies/HomelandDefense/Stock_News/Acquire_Armour.asp

[manhattan]

What Mr. Moto says is true. But to be clear, Armour Holdings, the tiny company which might be able to do a few HMMWVs for Israel != Armor Holdings, the bigger company which can do 450/month for the U.S. Also, some of Armor Holdings' production does indeed go to some foreign companies. I don't know if they've re-directed current production or stopped taking foreign orders during the current production rampup.

[RickJay]

The problem is that there are more explosive devices being deployed than anybody with any authority expected.
For Christ's sake. They're BOMBS or MINES. Simple, clear, honest language.

[Sam Stone]

I'm just glad that the left has a newly rediscovered desire to strengthen the military and buy them all the equipment they need.

Because lord knows, after every conflict ended in the past, they wasted no more than a week or so before wailing that the military was too big and that all these expensive armored vehicles and such just weren't necessary...

The U.S. military goes into every conflict on a shoestring, because it's always getting its budgets cut like mad as soon as a war is over. The U.S. had the largest military on the planet after WWII, and occupied half the freakin' globe. Six years later, it could barely field enough troops for the Korean War. During the cold war it was a constant fight with Democrats to get the military funded properly. And of course, as soon as the cold war ended the Democrats had a feeding frenzy over how to spend the 'peace dividend', with some Democrats wanting to absolutely gut the military. After all, who's left to fight? Ain't gonna study war no more! Peace in our time!

To be fair, some on the right were doing the same thing after the cold war, including one Donald Rumsfeld. I remember bitching about his idiotic plan to abandon the 'two front war' doctrine right here on this board before 9/11 happened.

Maybe this time the lesson will stick. You don't equip an army just for the threats you face today. You equip it for the threats you may face tomorrow. And use the worst-case scenario in your planning, because it usually turns out that way. And as we're finding out in Iraq, it can take a long time to get an army up to speed.

Imagine how much easier it would be to manage this war with the army of 1992 - when there were 800,000 more Americans in uniform, including almost 300,000 more Army soldiers.

[RickJay]

During the cold war it was a constant fight with Democrats to get the military funded properly.
Cite, please.

I would like to see objective evidence that, during the Cold War (which I will assume was from the end of World War II to 1989) Democrats did a disproportionate amount of the cutting of defence budgets.

[Harborwolf]

Maybe this time the lesson will stick. You don't equip an army just for the threats you face today. You equip it for the threats you may face tomorrow. And use the worst-case scenario in your planning, because it usually turns out that way. And as we're finding out in Iraq, it can take a long time to get an army up to speed.

As I understand, the threats of tommorow was part of the problem. Maybe as far back as the Clinton administration, the military has wanted to go light and fast instead of entrenched and armored. I remember some projects being cut from the budget (armored vehicles, a tank or two) being cut because they weren't the sort of rapid response items the military was looking for.

It's not just a matter of funding, but of putting the money into the right projects. We seem to be putting all of our eggs in one strategic basket. One quick but fragile lil basket.

[Sam Stone]

I'm not sure how to 'cite' a general trend. I can point to lots of individual Democrats that advocated serious cuts in funding (including John Kerry's desire to cut 6 billion from the intel budget after 9/11), but you can always find someone who disagrees. I could point to the large amount of support in the Democratic party for things like nuclear freezes, opposition to the Bradley fighting vehicle, the cruise missile, the MX missile, the Pershing missile, various ballistic subs, the M1 Abrams tank, and all kinds of other weapons systems. But you can always find someone who disagrees and cites that.

So I offer as evidence my experience fighting these cuts in the U.S. and Canada. And of course, Canada did elect Liberals, and look at our military.

[Sam Stone]

Harborwolf said:


As I understand, the threats of tommorow was part of the problem. Maybe as far back as the Clinton administration, the military has wanted to go light and fast instead of entrenched and armored. I remember some projects being cut from the budget (armored vehicles, a tank or two) being cut because they weren't the sort of rapid response items the military was looking for.

It's not just a matter of funding, but of putting the money into the right projects. We seem to be putting all of our eggs in one strategic basket. One quick but fragile lil basket.


This is all true, and valid points. An example of a system like this was the Crusader, which was too big to be carried by anything but heavy airlift, and which wasn't needed for the kinds of wars that are being fought today.

But if anything, there is a need for MORE personnel. The type of threats the U.S. faces in the future will probably involve easy military victories, but very, very difficult occupations. So the army needs to be different. Lighter, more agile, rapid response...sure. But that doesn't mean smaller.

To their credit, the Democrats are pushing for this, from what I can tell. And for some reason, the Bush administration is opposing it. They're wrong, the Dems are right. Glad to see the Democrats coming on board. I just hope they have the stomach to stay for the long haul, and don't start calling for major cuts the minute the current conflict ends.

[Zoe]

During WWII, the founder of Halliburton Oil turned his company over to Roosevelt to be used in whatever way was necessary for the good of the country. Citizens were also asked to save scrap metal for the war effort. More could have been done if our leaders had set their minds to it or asked the country to sacrifice a little.

Why haven't the women and men had all of the personal protective gear they've needed? It has certainly been available. Private families have bought it. I've heard it was even available on eBay.

Meanwhile, how many millions has the Defense Department wasted on unused airline tickets, etc.?

The young guardsman from Tennessee is bound for Iraq.

[Merijeek]

Dja see the clip of McCain commenting on Rumsfeld's continuing stint as Sec'y of Defense? He said something like, "He's the guy, so we'll work with him, of course." The interviewer said, "That doesn't sound like a vote of confidence." And McCain said, "No, it's not."

Might as well just come right out with it: "What do you want me to say? We all know, the man's incompetent."

And he is.

(There was also the clip of Wolfowitz saying before Congress in 1993, something like, "I can't imagine it'd take more troops to occupy and secure Iraq than it would to overthrow it..." More gross incompetence. I can't believe people are still defending these chuckleheads.)

Shit, sweetheart, today I was forced to sit listening to O'Reilly while trapped in a car with my boss. Even Bill Fucking O'Reilly blames basically everything that has happened in Iraq from the moment the invasion started on "bad planning".

-Joe fucking Joe

[Tuckerfan]

Well, Zoe, at least my employer does care. Since 9/11 he's given a discount to our military customers and shifted their orders to a priority status.

[Merijeek]

What the hell is this supposed to imply, Reeder? That the evil Jews are controlling where the armor goes?

Armour of America was recently acquired by Arotech, which has extensive armoring operations of its own. One of these is an Israeli subsidiary, MDT Protective Industries.

Israel has its own military budget and its own need for armored Humvees. It's hardly surprising that they'd use a domestic contractor to provide this service. And there's little the U.S. can do about that, except to perhaps make use of the same firm.

http://www.homelanddefensestocks.com/Companies/HomelandDefense/Stock_News/Acquire_Armour.asp

Umm...Moto?

Admittedly, you're dealing with reeder here, but I think you're reading into what he said what you wanted to hear from that loon, and not what he was saying.

Israel is involved in a...let's say "contested occupation operation" and has been since before I was born. They, apparently, have decided that it's smart to armor all their vehicles because in a COO your troops are in danger at all times from anti-occupation forces.

And now you have the USA involved in its very own COO. Instead of learning from the lessons of one of their closest strategic partners, they instead send a bunch of underarmored vehicles, something their allies learned a long time ago.

So, basically, why is it that the Israelis have their vehicles armored? Because what the USA has been involved in for a year and a half the Israelis have been involved in for thirty.

I suppose, though, that armoring your vehicles messes up Rummie's "fast, light, cheap" style of fighting a war.

-Joe

[Nietzsche]

Sam Stone:

I'm just glad that the left has a newly rediscovered desire to strengthen the military and buy them all the equipment they need.

...things like nuclear freezes, opposition to the Bradley fighting vehicle, the cruise missile, the MX missile, the Pershing missile, various ballistic subs, the M1 Abrams tank, and all kinds of other weapons systems.

To their credit, the Democrats are pushing for this, from what I can tell. Glad to see the Democrats coming on board.

Coming on board? Sounds to me like they've had it right the whole time.
How many nuclear submarines did you need for the action in Afghanistan? How many were used in Iraq? How many multi-million dollar fighter jets were needed? On the one hand you agree with the idea of a revised army to face today's challenges. Yet you suggest the means for that to be equipment that wasn't used once in any recent military action.
To suggest that the U.S. should have kept the enormous military of 1992 "just in case of days like today..." is ludicrous. How about using the military for what it was meant for ("choke it off and kill it") and let the nation builders do the occupying.

And for some reason, the Bush administration is opposing it.
I wonder why that is.

[LordVor]

Because lord knows, after every conflict ended in the past, they wasted no more than a week or so before wailing that the military was too big and that all these expensive armored vehicles and such just weren't necessary...

I would love a cite of any country, any time in the history of the world, that continued to maintain an army at wartime levels in times of peace. That just doesn't make economic sense.

[Loach]

I suppose, though, that armoring your vehicles messes up Rummie's "fast, light, cheap" style of fighting a war.

-Joe

I don't think you understand the concept. It called for using vehicles like armored HMMWVs and Strykers more rather than less. The "fast and light" refered to relying less on heavy armored vehicles like the Abrams and Crusader. The plan is to have a force that is less reliant on Armor (with a capital A, as in tanks), CONUS based, more deployable and more flexible.Getting more M1114s into the inventory will allow the planned restructuring to happen quicker. The restructuring was planned before 911 and was actually derailed for a time by the GWOT. I understand and agree with the basic concept of the restructuring but I disagree with a lot of the implementation.

[Merijeek]

I don't think you understand the concept. It called for using vehicles like armored HMMWVs and Strykers more rather than less. The "fast and light" refered to relying less on heavy armored vehicles like the Abrams and Crusader. The plan is to have a force that is less reliant on Armor (with a capital A, as in tanks), CONUS based, more deployable and more flexible.Getting more M1114s into the inventory will allow the planned restructuring to happen quicker. The restructuring was planned before 911 and was actually derailed for a time by the GWOT. I understand and agree with the basic concept of the restructuring but I disagree with a lot of the implementation.

It called for scaling down the big armor in favor of more of the little armor. Any monkey can understand that. And it's probably even a good idea of you're going to, say, rush into a nation, demolish the enemy military, and force a surrender from their leaders.

It's not such a good idea if your military is going to spend a good chunk of their time driving in convoys (though "safe areas") from a fixed starting point to a fixed destination that the enemy can predict.

Rumsfeld designed and is implementing the wrong kind of army for the wrong kind of war. And now troops are dying because he and his boss were so convinced that the Iraqis would be throwing flowers instead of bombs. Then, when bombs did get thrown it was obviously nothing but displaced Baathists and foreign fighters. Because they couldn't possibly have been wrong!

But, hey, why should he suffer for it? It looks like in this cabinet the two biggest fuckups are on the list to stay...and one of them even got a promotion.

-Joe

[Mr. Moto]

Sounds to me like they've had it right the whole time.
How many nuclear submarines did you need for the action in Afghanistan? How many were used in Iraq? How many multi-million dollar fighter jets were needed? On the one hand you agree with the idea of a revised army to face today's challenges. Yet you suggest the means for that to be equipment that wasn't used once in any recent military action.

Nietsche, you might be interested in this account. (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_15/call_action.html) Some of the first Tomahawk cruise missiles fired into Afghanistan were from Los Angeles class nuclear powered subs just like the USS Providence.

Sub launched cruise missiles were used in the Iraq war as well.

From this site, (http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/f-18.htm) we learn that a single carrier-based squadron equipped with the F/A-18E/F strike fighter dropped 380,000 pounds of ordinance on Iraqi targets. This was just one of several Navy squadrons involved, and doesn't include Air Force participation, which I'm too lazy to look up right now.

You're obviously not well informed in this particular topic, so I wonder how you can make your assertions with such confidence.

[Loach]

It called for scaling down the big armor in favor of more of the little armor. Any monkey can understand that. And it's probably even a good idea of you're going to, say, rush into a nation, demolish the enemy military, and force a surrender from their leaders.

It's not such a good idea if your military is going to spend a good chunk of their time driving in convoys (though "safe areas") from a fixed starting point to a fixed destination that the enemy can predict.

Rumsfeld designed and is implementing the wrong kind of army for the wrong kind of war. And now troops are dying because he and his boss were so convinced that the Iraqis would be throwing flowers instead of bombs. Then, when bombs did get thrown it was obviously nothing but displaced Baathists and foreign fighters. Because they couldn't possibly have been wrong!

But, hey, why should he suffer for it? It looks like in this cabinet the two biggest fuckups are on the list to stay...and one of them even got a promotion.

-Joe

You are too busy contradicting yourself, I won't stand in your way.

[MMI]

Mr Moto

Was it necessary that the launcher of the cruise missiles be submarine? Was it convenient? Was it done because the sub was there and it had the missiles?

Were the navy airstrikes optimally carried out by F-18's? Would A-6's (a-7's/a-4's) have been better or worse (or at least adequate)? Would the A-12 have been better or worse? What would the advantages of a JSF based force have been over the existing force?

I fully agree that in the conventional war we used pretty much everything we had. If you try and persuade me that the war could not have been won without subs and I don't think I will take you seriously.* Further, I do hope that the occupation does not require ongoing submarine support.

The conventional war also used our naval aviation forces extensively as you note - which is of course in large part their intended use. That doesn't mean that for fighting wars against foes of Iraq's (or any axis of evil member) capabilities you need the next generation of attack planes. Are we still using carrier based airstrikes to support our efforts?

Yes the GOP is big into defense spending. Yes, many of the systems we have bought have been used in the current conflict. That does not mean that the sexiest big ticket items are the optimal set of equipment for the current conflict.



*This is not saying that the US has no need or use for its existing or planned submarine force, merely that for this war they are irrelevent.

[Merijeek]

You are too busy contradicting yourself, I won't stand in your way.

Damn, good thing I did it, then.

Apparently you can't.

Here's a simple one for you, then.

If full armor refit kits are what's required to help protect the troops, then why are the troops using scrap metal and chunks of ballistic glass to try and help enhance their protection?

Are the troops stupid, or is it too expensive to ship some steel plating to Iraq so the troops don't have to spend their time looking through scrap heaps?

-Joe

[tagos]

Are the troops stupid, or is it too expensive to ship some steel plating to Iraq so the troops don't have to spend their time looking through scrap heaps?

-Joe

I guess if Halliburton hold the steel scraps contract the answer is almost certainly 'yes'. ;)

[Mr. Moto]

Mr MotoThis is not saying that the US has no need or use for its existing or planned submarine force, merely that for this war they are irrelevent.

Well, this seems perfectly silly, MMI.

You say we need submarines. That's perfectly correct. Yet you seem to want those submarines to be limited in the use we can put them to.

Given that we need them, and have to build them anyway, wouldn't it be wise and cost effective to equip them to do multiple jobs? A submarine is a perfect strike delivery vehicle due to its stealth. This quality makes it useful for special operations as well.

You seem to want to restrict our subs to a more limited deep water role, when many of the new warfare challenges we're going to face will be in the littoral space, close to shore.

[Nietzsche]

Mr Moto:

At no point was I (or from what I've read, the American Democratic party) suggesting that there was no use for those weapons and systems or that they should be eliminated completely. My comment was in response to Sam's assertion that the amount of such systems needed to remain at historically high levels, or perhaps even higher.
But since you are so well versed in the matter, would you be so kind as to submit a few cites which shows how the systems you specifically referenced (ie nuclear subs, fighter jets, etc.) were a) critical to the success of the operation b) necessary and helpful to the subsequent occupation, and c) how having levels comprable to 1992 levels would have made the mission easier or more successful.

You're obviously not well informed in this particular topic, so I wonder how you can make your assertions with such confidence.
I would appreciate you informing me further by submitting some cites as I requested above.

[Mr. Moto]

This isn't General Questions, Nietzsche.

The points I wished to make were quite well cited. Now, if you want to make assertions about the relative necessity of these systems, I suggest you conduct your own research and post your own citations.

[dropzone]

Subs were needed for their stealth? What were they hiding from? And didn't they expect the Iraqis would know they were out there since the whole Fifth Fleet was there?

This war would've gone about as well with WWII technology.

[World Eater]

Here's a wacky idea, let's use the missle shield money for shit we actually need.

[Loach]

Damn, good thing I did it, then.

Apparently you can't.

Here's a simple one for you, then.

If full armor refit kits are what's required to help protect the troops, then why are the troops using scrap metal and chunks of ballistic glass to try and help enhance their protection?

Are the troops stupid, or is it too expensive to ship some steel plating to Iraq so the troops don't have to spend their time looking through scrap heaps?

-Joe

The steel plating is already there. There are tons of three inch steel plate that was sent over as emergency road repair material. It is being fitted onto vehicles as needed. Scrap heaps are being raided because if you put 3 inch plate on a vehicle Joe (not you, the generic Joe) is going to want 6 inch plate. If he has 6 inch he'll want 9 inch. Every truck driver wants to know why his HEMTT doesn't have Chobham armor.


There have been several arguments going on here. The main inferance here and elsewhere after the comments were broadcast was that the administration is not doing enough to field armored vehicles at this time. That has been discounted by several cites in this thread alone. The factory is putting out armored HMMWVs 24/7, Army arsenals and private contractors are putting out armor add on packages 24/7, any short falls are being made up by using materials that are in theater already.

The next argument is that the administration is at fault for not foreseeing the need for a great number of armored vehicles. True. No one foresaw the need. For the last twenty years since the HMMWV was first fielded, no one foresaw the need. In order to have had full fielding, the procurement needed to start sometime during the Clinton Administration. Why didn't they concieve of any contigency why they would need it, even after Somalia? I do have some serious disagreements with the planning of this conflict but I do not see any way to blame the lack of armored HMMWVs on this administration

The argument that this thread seems to be moving to is that we wouldn't need so many vehicles if Bush didn't invade. That's not what the thread is about. If you want to argue the legal or ethical reasons for or against the war start a thread. I don't think it's been done before.

[Debaser]

From the Drudge report (http://drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm):


Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee Pitts is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, now in Kuwait preparing to enter Iraq, and is filing articles for his newspaper. Pitts claims in a purported email that he coached soldiers to ask Defense Secretary Rumsfeld questions!


From the reporter's email to his paper:


I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.


It's interesting, although not surprising that he considers this shameful, dishonest act to be one of his best days as a journalist. Perhaps this is why the American people have so little respect for journalists.

[Debaser]

This war would've gone about as well with WWII technology.

Wow. Such idiocy is so shocking. I'm simply in awe of this.

[Loach]

From the Drudge report (http://drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm):



From the reporter's email to his paper:



It's interesting, although not surprising that he considers this shameful, dishonest act to be one of his best days as a journalist. Perhaps this is why the American people have so little respect for journalists.


I need an armored Hummer to carry the grain of salt I am taking with that story. I would have to see something a little more concrete than something Drudge throws up on his site.

[manhattan]

I agree. Drudge gets enough stuff right that one might reasonably look for corroboration of his stories, but he's wrong often enough that using him, uncorroborated, as a source is a poor idea.

[Squink]

Wow. Such idiocy is so shocking. I'm simply in awe of this.
Had we done the 'Shock and Awe' thing with the same approach we took to Dresden or Tokyo, it would have been much more shocking and awing than it was with precision weapons.

[Danalan]

The problem is that there are more explosive devices being deployed than anybody with any authority expected.
For Christ's sake. They're BOMBS or MINES. Simple, clear, honest language.OK. Bombs and mines. Let's try that:
"The problem is that there are more bombs or mines being deployed than anybody with any authority expected."

Nope, 'explosive devices' works better -- it covers the entire range of use for the explosive materials now in the possession of our enemies, and is more specific. Plus, it's two words instead of three. Of course, you have to have more than a 2nd grade education to understand those two words. Is that a problem for you?

Frankly, I'd have thought you'd complain about 'deployed'. If I wanted to dumb down my writing style, that's where I'd start.

"There are a lot of bombs and mines being used. The people in charge didn't plan for that. They lost 380 tons (760,000 pounds) of explosives. They were stupid not to think about putting armor on their Hummers, plus they were stupid to let the explosives get stolen. That makes them doubly stupid."

Is that simple enough for you, asshole?

[World Eater]

True. No one foresaw the need.

Are you broken in the head? Plenty of people foresaw the need. The idiots in charge thought we would roll right in and everyone would kneel before us.

I do have some serious disagreements with the planning of this conflict but I do not see any way to blame the lack of armored HMMWVs on this administration


Well then you must be the twin brother of Stevie Wonder.

Fuck Clinton who cares about him, get out of the past. Bush should have checked the state of the military during the ramp up to war, and made adjustments accordingly. The decision was his and his alone, to send our military in its current state to war. Leave Clinton the hell out of it. Fuck I could have planned this war better then these knuckleheads.

[LordVor]

The argument that this thread seems to be moving to is that we wouldn't need so many vehicles if Bush didn't invade.

Again, there's a difference between "we wouldn't need so many vehicles if Bush didn't invade" and "Bush should have realized that an armed occupation of a foreign territory would require more armored vehicles than he had." In the latter case, there are things that the planners should have done differently (like, say, recruited more allies before committing themselves, hold off on attacking until we had enough armor for the job, adjust tactics, had an exit strategy, you know, that kind of stuff) without delving into the reasons for or against the wall. The fact that he didn't do those things can imply that he didn't care that they'd be going in underequipped.

And there's also a difference between "doing everything reasonably possible" and "doing enough". As in, you can be doing everything reasonably possible to fix a situation, but it still isn't enough to fix it. Getting into that situation is a direct result of poor planning as well.

-lv

[Debaser]

I agree. Drudge gets enough stuff right that one might reasonably look for corroboration of his stories, but he's wrong often enough that using him, uncorroborated, as a source is a poor idea.

Fair enough. I'm certainly not going to bet the farm on the accuracy of Drudge's story. However, it's certainly relevant and interesting. We'll see in the next couple of days if it's actually true or not.

[Loach]

Are you broken in the head? Plenty of people foresaw the need. The idiots in charge thought we would roll right in and everyone would kneel before us.



Well then you must be the twin brother of Stevie Wonder.

Fuck Clinton who cares about him, get out of the past. Bush should have checked the state of the military during the ramp up to war, and made adjustments accordingly. The decision was his and his alone, to send our military in its current state to war. Leave Clinton the hell out of it. Fuck I could have planned this war better then these knuckleheads.

Who saw the need? Who was asking for every HMMWV to be armored in the 80s, or the 90s or 4 years ago? You can not "make adjustments accordingly" in a couple of months. In order to procure that many vehicles it would have taken years. I don't think Clinton would have allowed Bush to start buying HMMWVs during his administration.

[rjung]

I'm not sure how to 'cite' a general trend.
Translation: "My claim came out of my ass, so the only cites I can offer are mental diahrria."

[World Eater]

Who saw the need? Who was asking for every HMMWV to be armored in the 80s, or the 90s or 4 years ago? You can not "make adjustments accordingly" in a couple of months. In order to procure that many vehicles it would have taken years. I don't think Clinton would have allowed Bush to start buying HMMWVs during his administration.

Well I'll just quote you since I couldn't say it any better.....

"Bush should have realized that an armed occupation of a foreign territory would require more armored vehicles than he had." In the latter case, there are things that the planners should have done differently (like, say, recruited more allies before committing themselves, hold off on attacking until we had enough armor for the job, adjust tactics, had an exit strategy, you know, that kind of stuff) without delving into the reasons for or against the wall. The fact that he didn't do those things can imply that he didn't care that they'd be going in underequipped.

Still going to say this admin shouldn't be held responsible?

[World Eater]

Crap. Replace "you" with "Lordvar"

[Danalan]

Bloggerman (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/) and Poynter (http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=75428) have the account of the embedded newsman coming up with the question. He also made sure his question got attention.

Whether or not you agree that he should have orchestrated this incident is probably a question for another thread.

[dropzone]

Wow. Such idiocy is so shocking. I'm simply in awe of this.Okay, tell me. Why is my statement idiotic? I think you have bought the Pentagon's self-promotion a little too easily.

As of Spring 2003 Saddam had no air force, AA, or armor to speak of. We could have had air superiority with a squadron of P-51s and done all of the pinpoint bombing with 1945-type aircraft. The lack of helicopters might slow some operations but Iraq has lots of roads and flat land to get around on in Jeeps and 2-1/2 ton trucks, neither of which is LESS armored than a HumVee or an S-10 pickup. The M4 Sherman, being narrower than the M1 Abrahms, would be better in the cities and perfectly adequate out in the open since there was no opposing armor.

But, as in all wars, this one is being fought mostly by grunts on the ground and the only big improvements for them have been in communications and body armor. And since our men were sent in with too little body armor its lack in 1945 would be no great problem. Their weaponry? I've been tempted to start a half-joking thread Pitting the military for adopting the M16 because, with it's toy-like size and materials, it just isn't very intimidating looking, reducing respect for America because our enemies have scary-looking AK-47s. Imagine the respect American soldiers would get if they busted into a house brandishing Tommy Guns like Al Capone! (Yeah, I know the Thompson was being phased out by 1945 in favor of the lighter and cheaper M3 "Grease Gun" but that was no reflection on the Thompson's abilities. It was and is a hell of a weapon.) The reduced communications would force our men to depend more on their own judgement and abilities but I have never doubted either in the average GI. We build us a damned good soldier. He may gripe some but that doesn't mean he is not as good as a soldier from any other country. And a good Citizen Soldier, just like the Citizen Drafters I deal with, shouldn't be cowed by rank. Hell, I've never had any use for a subordinate who didn't think he or she had a better idea now and then and Rumsfeld should feel the same.

[Squink]

I need an armored Hummer to carry the grain of salt I am taking with that story. I would have to see something a little more concrete than something Drudge throws up on his site.
Regina Wilson wasn’t entirely surprised to see her husband, a guardsman bound for Iraq, on television Wednesday challenging Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with a tough question.

“He is always like that,” she said. “I don’t think he understands the concept of biting one’s tongue. It wouldn’t matter if it was Bush himself standing there. He would have dissed him the same.”Wife not surprised soldier asked Rumsfeld tough question (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-546136.php)

[Loach]

Wife not surprised soldier asked Rumsfeld tough question (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-546136.php)


Did you add my comment because you agree or disagree, kind of hard to tell without any comment.

[LordVor]

Crap. Replace "you" with "Lordvar"

Close enough. Maybe he'll address them again if my points are raised in your post. Right now, it just kinda looks like he's trying to put the words that he can counter into his opposition's mouth.

-lv

[Squink]

Did you add my comment because you agree or disagree, kind of hard to tell without any comment.Even if a reporter did put the guy up for the question, it was in accord with his natural leanings. Sort of diminishes the potential for outrage, don't you think?

[Loach]

Close enough. Maybe he'll address them again if my points are raised in your post. Right now, it just kinda looks like he's trying to put the words that he can counter into his opposition's mouth.

-lv

I do have other things going on other than this thread. Your last post was well thought out and I'll have to go back and look at the points I agree with and the parts I disagree with. I don't have time to put together a reply right now. After reading your well thought out posts I hope you don't continue with the tone of the above quoted post.

Even if a reporter did put the guy up for the question, it was in accord with his natural leanings. Sort of diminishes the potential for outrage, don't you think?

I wasn't outraged. Thats why I said I was taking anything quoted by Drudge with a giant grain of salt. That's why I am confused why you picked my quote. I am assuming that the soldier asked the question on his own accord until I can see credible evidence to the contrary.

[LordVor]

After reading your well thought out posts I hope you don't continue with the tone of the above quoted post..

OTOH, you have had six replies in this thread since I made my original point, including one or two of which that misunderstood or misapplied my original position ("should have had a strategy for the war that didn't involve needing more armored vehicles than they had"). So I felt justified being a bit skeptical.

But now that I've explained my position better, I look forward to your well thought out reply.

-lv

[LordVor]

The factory is putting out armored HMMWVs 24/7, Army arsenals and private contractors are putting out armor add on packages 24/7, any short falls are being made up by using materials that are in theater already.

Actually, what we've had cites for in this thread involve the administration and/or the army saying that the factories are building these things as fast as they can. The factory, OTOH, says that it still has plenty of surplus capacity left, but that the army has repeatedly underestimated it's own needs. (thanks, Fark)

Armor Holdings Could Boost Humvee Armor Output 22% (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aMGdbQCSwiRg&refer=home)

[RickJay]

OK. Bombs and mines. Let's try that:
"The problem is that there are more bombs or mines being deployed than anybody with any authority expected."

Is that simple enough for you, asshole?
Actually, no. The idea is to use one word or the other. "The problem is that there are more bombs being deployed..." sounds much better, is perfectly understandable, and isn't blather.

"Explosive device" is what an Army spokeman says when he's trying to avoid saying things that sound like they might actually kill your relatives.

[Debaser]

As of Spring 2003 Saddam had no air force, AA, or armor to speak of.


This is incorrect. Iraq had more tanks than our invading force did. We didn't beat them with numbers, we beat them with better equipment and troops.

cite (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030228-065255-5159r)


The Iraqi Army has about 2,000 main battle tanks. In any ground war, Iraq would have a numerical advantage in tanks, but this would be rendered meaningless by the overwhelming qualitative disadvantage they would face. The Iraqis do not have a weapon that will penetrate the frontal armor of an American Abrams or a British Challenger tank. During the Gulf War, there were about 1,000 engagements between crewed Iraqi tanks and either Abrams or Challenger tanks. In those engagements, the Iraqis scored one hit, which disabled, but did not destroy, an Abrams. The Iraqis lost 1,000 tanks. Most suffered catastrophic internal ammunition explosions and, to the best of my knowledge, none of the roughly 3,500 men in those tanks survived.

The Iraqi Army also has 1,700 infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers in its combat divisions. Infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are both armored troop carriers. The difference is, IFVs are equipped with guns (anything firing a projectile 20mm or larger qualifies as a gun) and APCs are equipped with machine guns.

There are also around 1,600 artillery pieces, 1,000 of which are smaller caliber 122mm guns. Only about 150 of Iraq's artillery pieces are self-propelled. The self-propelled guns and the multiple rocket launchers, of which there are about 100, can be found in the armored or mechanized units.


Your notion that the only improvements for the troops fighting this war are in communications and body armour is way off base. We have satellite photos, unmanned arial vehicles, AWACs planes and many other much more advanced intelligence gathering techniques that were'nt even thought of yet in WWII. Knowing more than your enemy is a huge advantage that we have due to technology. Special forces were laser guiding in smart bombs dropped from advanced stealth bombers. Medical advancements are too numerous to mention. I could go on and on.

[Loach]

Again, there's a difference between "we wouldn't need so many vehicles if Bush didn't invade" and "Bush should have realized that an armed occupation of a foreign territory would require more armored vehicles than he had." In the latter case, there are things that the planners should have done differently (like, say, recruited more allies before committing themselves, hold off on attacking until we had enough armor for the job, adjust tactics, had an exit strategy, you know, that kind of stuff) without delving into the reasons for or against the wall. The fact that he didn't do those things can imply that he didn't care that they'd be going in underequipped.

And there's also a difference between "doing everything reasonably possible" and "doing enough". As in, you can be doing everything reasonably possible to fix a situation, but it still isn't enough to fix it. Getting into that situation is a direct result of poor planning as well.

-lv

I do agree that there were problems with the overall strategy . For reasons of regulation and law I can not place blame in this forum. Believe me, there is plenty of issues both pro and con the current administration that I can't comment on for various reasons. That is not important and I'm sure you don't care. Having said that I will say I agree with a lot of what you said. However the current issue is about the armor on vehicles. There have been plans to invade Iraq since the first gulf war. That's what the Pentagon does, they make contingency plans. I'm sure there is a plan to invade Belgium somewhere. In all this planning no one came forward and said that the military needs more armored vehicles. It is ridiculous to assume that the Bush administration would feel different than the last 20 years of military and civilian leadership. In order to "hold off on attacking until we had enough armor for the job" they would had to have ramped up production on inauguration day or earlier. The factory used to make 15 a month. The president relies on the generals to come up with the proper doctrine. The doctrine was that armored HMMWVs were needed only for scouts and MPs. At this point it's easy to see that the thinking was flawed. Not so easy beforehand. When the problem was identified, solutions were put in place. To listen to all the furvor over the last day you would think that the administration has done nothing to fix the problem. In reality it has the highest priority.

I will answer your other reply in a minute.

[Loach]

Actually, what we've had cites for in this thread involve the administration and/or the army saying that the factories are building these things as fast as they can. The factory, OTOH, says that it still has plenty of surplus capacity left, but that the army has repeatedly underestimated it's own needs. (thanks, Fark)

Armor Holdings Could Boost Humvee Armor Output 22% (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aMGdbQCSwiRg&refer=home)

Interesting article. I wonder what the company was saying before the soldier asked the question.

Shares of Armor Holdings rose 66 cents, or 1.6 percent in New York Stock Exchange composite trading at 11:34 a.m.

I was able to watch the press conference from Kuwait with the Third Army Commander. Some of this is from memory some from the CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/index.html) update.

Di Rita pointed out it is Pentagon policy that troops driving Humvees into Iraq drive only armored vehicles. Unarmored Humvees are transported into the country on flatbed trucks and used only inside compounds and other relatively safe areas, he said.

About 19,000 armored Humvees are in the Central Command's area of operations, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan, Di Rita said. That is about 2,000 short of what commanders have requested, he said.


According to the press conference, there are around 30,000 vehicles in the CENTCOM area (including Afganistan, Kuwait). 4000 are not armored. 2000 are HMMWVs The unarmored vehicles are vehicles such as tool trucks and other things that are used in contonement and not on patrol. Those vehicles are flat-bedded into the area. Granted some of the armor is better than others. It would be ideal if each vehicle was armored with the best composite armor but that won't happen soon due to logistics. Even if its true that the company can crank out another 50 a month it still would take a while. Bottom line those that need the armor all ready have it.

The SPC who made the comment is a National Guardsman in Kuwait who has not be deployed to Iraq yet. The vehicles they are using are not the ones they will be using. The armored patrol vehicles being used in Iraq do not leave with the units as they rotate. Anyone who is going to perform patrols will fall in on armored vehicles already in theater.


If it is true that they can make more than they are, that order should be made or heads should roll.

[dropzone]

I could go on and on.I can accept what you said but what I said was "This war would've gone about as well with WWII technology." In retrospect, maybe not the war but the "peace" sure would've! ;) Filling the floor of your Humvee with sandbags and boiler plate ain't 21st century tech!

However, I'm always happy to dig myself in deeper. As the Soviets demonstrated at Kursk, even the best armor cannot survive without air superiority and those additional Iraqi tanks and other armored vehicles would've been toast, whether the attacking aircraft were A-10s or Mustangs. (The USAF evaluated the Piper PA-48 Enforcer, basically a revised P-51, as a light ground attack aircraft in 1984, eleven years after the A-10's evaluation.)

The greatest medical advance on the battlefield has been the ability to evacuate the wounded quickly. In 1945 the Bell Model 47 came out and was capable of carrying two casualties (like on M*A*S*H). But yes, we lost fewer men than we would have in '45 because of other medical advances.

Improved battlefield intelligence is a wonderful advantage but, again, we had air superiority and were fighting an enemy whose AA capabilities were severely compromised to begin with, thanks its to near total destruction in 1991 and repeated destruction every time it lit up since then, and then was manned by gunners who were not at the top of the game, so we could've retained much of that advantage with older recon vehicles. Stealth bombers are way cool but aren't exactly necessary when there's nobody around who can aim. (OTOH, because of their construction Mosquitos were quite stealthy for their day.) Dive bombers, which thrive when there are no enemy fighters or AA to get in the way, were quite accurate. Maybe not AS accurate as laser-guided smart bombs but perfectly adequate for most uses in this war.

My point is that yes, modern technology is neat and is absolutely necessary when going up against a first-class fighting force, but the Iraqis were not that enemy. Brand new, fancy gear made it easier to invade Iraq but not that much easier. Using a nuclear attack sub to fire cruise missiles is an example of overkill when a B-26 could do the job almost as well. I am not saying that we should throw out all of the advances made in the past sixty years. I just want to make the point that those advances were not necessary for the successful prosecution of this particular war.

[LordVor]

Interesting article. I wonder what the company was saying before the soldier asked the question.


LOL. I just wanted to make sure that we're getting the spin from both sides :)

The rest of your point I consider valid or invalid depending upon your definition of "armored". From your cite:

Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, told the AP that as far as he knows vehicles going to Iraq from Kuwait's Camp Buehring have at least "Level 3" armor.

These vehicles would have locally fabricated armor for side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against blasts through floorboards, according to the AP.

Now, to me, "locally fabricated armor" sounds consistant with "armor we dug out of landfills", and Level 3 certainly doesn't sound like anything that _I_ would want to be patrolling in. But I'll admit to some ignorance here as to what's actually occuring, and welcome cites as to the adequate armoring of patrol vehicles, particularly your point about the "level 3" humvees being trucked across the border, and about the humvees that they're armoring with leftover bits being left in Kuwait.

[manhattan]

LOL. I just wanted to make sure that we're getting the spin from both sides :)Heh. They were making less than 60/month a year ago. They got the contract to increase to 450/month in October and only notified the Pentagon of their ability to increase from that level last month.

Now, to me, "locally fabricated armor" sounds consistant with "armor we dug out of landfills", and Level 3 certainly doesn't sound like anything that _I_ would want to be patrolling in. But I'll admit to some ignorance here as to what's actually occuring, and welcome cites as to the adequate armoring of patrol vehicles, particularly your point about the "level 3" humvees being trucked across the border, and about the humvees that they're armoring with leftover bits being left in Kuwait."Locally fabricated" means installed at the location, but it's not clear whether he's referring to improvised armor or to locally installed but properly designed on-site up-armor kits. A search indicates that "Level 3 armor" seems to mean 'able to protect against bullets up to 14.5 mm and some heavier shells which detonate some distance away.' It also implies mine protection, which I have to imagine also include the kinds of IEDs the bad guys are using over there. So from that, I'm suspected to think he meant the proper up-armor kits, but of course I can't be sure.

[Mr. Moto]

Fuck Clinton who cares about him, get out of the past. Bush should have checked the state of the military during the ramp up to war, and made adjustments accordingly. The decision was his and his alone, to send our military in its current state to war. Leave Clinton the hell out of it. Fuck I could have planned this war better then these knuckleheads.

Do you know anything about military procurement at all?

As an example, the current iteration of the Tomahawk cruise missile has been upgraded to include GPS navigation. This simplifies mission planning and improves the missile accuracy.

The changes to the program that included this as a requirement were made by the Navy in the Clinton administration.

Today, we're working on further upgrades to the missile system, including the ability to get status reports from the missile and do in-flight retargeting. These changes should be fully on line for Bush's successor to take advantage of.

We can't just leave Clinton in the past. Much of our current military preparedness, for better and for worse, is due to decisions made on his watch.

The fact that you seem to be ignorant of all of this indicates that you, in fact, couldn't have planned this war better. Thanks for your opinion, though.

[elucidator]

It's all Clinton's fault. Of course. Should have known.

[Reeder]

I don't understand all this bickering.

If the powers that be wanted all of the humvees to be armored they would be armored.

Does anyone doubt the power of the Sec of defense?

[Tuckerfan]

Ever heard the saga of the M-16? The initial design was botched, and known to be botched, but our guys were issued them and shipped off to Vietnam anyway. It was only after the grunts started writing home to their Congressmen, complaining that about the problems with the weapons were they fixed. This is kind of an endemic problem with the military, and based on my experience, with large organizations in general.

[Mr. Moto]

It's all Clinton's fault. Of course. Should have known.

It seems like I gave credit to Clinton for making needed changes to the Tomahawk missile.

My example serves merely to illustrate the long timelines associated with military contracts.

You can continue to read what you want into my posts, though. I wouldn't want to break a pattern.

[Brutus]

I don't understand all this bickering.

If the powers that be wanted all of the humvees to be armored they would be armored.

Does anyone doubt the power of the Sec of defense?

So why doesn't he just miracle them all armored, brainiac?

[ElvisL1ves]

Heh. They were making less than 60/month a year ago. They got the contract to increase to 450/month in October and only notified the Pentagon of their ability to increase from that level last month.Some, shall we say, "clarification" (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/10/us_stance_on_armor_disputed/) of that today:
Despite Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that the military is outfitting Humvees with armor as quickly as possible, the company providing the vehicles said it has been waiting since September for approval from the Pentagon to increase monthly production by as many as 100 of the all-terrain vehicles, intended to protect against roadside bombs in Iraq.

Army officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged yesterday that they have not approved new purchase orders for armored trucks, despite the company's readiness to produce more. They said the Pentagon has been debating how many more armored Humvees are needed."We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month," Robert Mecredy, head of Armor Holdings' aerospace and defense unit, said in a statement. The company is producing about 450 armored Humvees per month, up from 50 in late 2003, when a sudden surge of attacks in Iraq exposed a lack of protective armor.Pentagon spokesman Don Jarosz said he could not immediately explain why more orders have not been placed for the fully armored Humvees. But defense officials who asked not to be identified blamed bureaucratic delays in determining how many orders should be placed.

Representative Marty Meehan of Lowell and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Democratic members of the armed services committees, said yesterday they have talked repeatedly with Armor Holdings and informed the Pentagon as long ago as April that top officials were mistaken about how many Humvees with the best armor protection could be produced.

"That's just not true," Bayh told reporters in a teleconference, referring to Pentagon assertions that it is moving as quickly as possible.

Bayh, who raised the issue of production capacity with Rumsfeld in an Oct. 6 letter, said he could not explain whether the failure to increase production was due to "bureaucratic ineptitude" or simply "general denial" about the magnitude of the need.

Meehan said of Armor Holdings: "They have never been at full production. They haven't received an order from the Pentagon despite telling them they can do that. They told them in September. Rumsfeld claiming that there is a production limit is not true. There is production capacity that isn't being used."

A little more skepticism about administration claims would be much healthier for you, manny.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

I remember in Hackworth's book About Face he talks about an inspection by Eisenhower in Trieste when he complained to the Supreme Allied Commander that they were getting too much Spam.
Eisenhower's response: "Change your ISP, soldier!"

[World Eater]

Do you know anything about military procurement at all?

As an example, the current iteration of the Tomahawk cruise missile has been upgraded to include GPS navigation. This simplifies mission planning and improves the missile accuracy.

The changes to the program that included this as a requirement were made by the Navy in the Clinton administration.

Today, we're working on further upgrades to the missile system, including the ability to get status reports from the missile and do in-flight retargeting. These changes should be fully on line for Bush's successor to take advantage of.

We can't just leave Clinton in the past. Much of our current military preparedness, for better and for worse, is due to decisions made on his watch.

The fact that you seem to be ignorant of all of this indicates that you, in fact, couldn't have planned this war better. Thanks for your opinion, though.

I'm not talking about military R&D, I'm talking about welding some fucking armor plates into a Humvee before you go into war. This is something that wasn't done under anyones watch, but a war wasn't started under anyones watch.

As far as planning the war better, I would have sent 200,000 troops over for starters.

[pervert]

I'm not talking about military R&D, I'm talking about welding some fucking armor plates into a Humvee before you go into war. This is something that wasn't done under anyones watch, but a war wasn't started under anyones watch.Yes, that's what your talking about, but that is not what the situation is. These armor kits are not simply scrap metal welded onto some humvees. You can improve the mumvees somewhat by doing that, but the armor kits in question which were (arguably) under ordered before the war and which have been increasingly ordered since are substantially more than this.

[World Eater]

Yes, that's what your talking about, but that is not what the situation is. These armor kits are not simply scrap metal welded onto some humvees. You can improve the mumvees somewhat by doing that, but the armor kits in question which were (arguably) under ordered before the war and which have been increasingly ordered since are substantially more than this.

And if the Bush admin insists it is "working as fast as it can", yet company that makes the armor says it could increase output by almost 25%, should I still hold Clinton responsible?

[pervert]

And if the Bush admin insists it is "working as fast as it can", yet company that makes the armor says it could increase output by almost 25%, should I still hold Clinton responsible?
Well, I would not hold Clinton "responsible" in either case. Clinton ordered the armor (or some amount of it) based on recomendations he recieved from DoD. His inability to be prescient is not a vice. Neither is DoD's.

[kaylasdad99]

"You go to war with the army you have, etc..."

Don't you generally go to war with a Declaration of War? Haven't seen one of those yet.

[World Eater]

Well, I would not hold Clinton "responsible" in either case. Clinton ordered the armor (or some amount of it) based on recomendations he recieved from DoD. His inability to be prescient is not a vice. Neither is DoD's.

We could quibble all night night about this. I was just refuting Moto's insane comment that the current admin has nothing to do with this situation.

[Reeder]

So why doesn't he just miracle them all armored, brainiac?

May I suggest you read ElvisL1ves post?

Does it take magic to say ...Yes increase production!

Do you have a reason they haven't approved it?

It's money isn't it. War on the cheap.

They don't care about the troops, they are just pawns.

Read this and see how much the army cares.

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2004/12/10/abandon1.htm

Oh btw Brutus.

Fuck you.

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Reeder, at the very least this is your FINAL warning. You just got back from a temp ban fercrisesake! And I am going to talk over with the rest of the admins whether you even get the privilege of a final warning this time, or if we just boot you.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Reeder]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Reeder, at the very least this is your FINAL warning. You just got back from a temp ban fercrisesake! And I am going to talk over with the rest of the admins whether you even get the privilege of a final warning this time, or if we just boot you.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

What did I do wrong?

Is this not the pit?

[World Eater]

I love how the admin is saying they were unaware that AH could increase production. I wonder how many other options they're unaware of that they should be.

[Gaudere]

Is this not the pit?

Uh...oops. Sorry. :o There's the GD troop armor thread, and the Pit troop armor thread, and I got them mixed up.

[GIGObuster]

Whew, that was close! Glad that I previewed! I was going to report Gaudere to Gaudere! :)

[Mr. Moto]

We could quibble all night night about this. I was just refuting Moto's insane comment that the current admin has nothing to do with this situation.

Pardon me, but I said nothing of the sort.

What I did say is that the previous administration had a hand in this as well, to refute your ludicrous assertion that Clinton's actions didn't matter, that that was all in the past.

I've been working with the military as both an enlisted sailor and as an employee of a government contractor for nearly twelve years, so I can honestly say that no administration, DoD secretary, or set of congressional leadership is wholly bad or wholly good for our country's military.

This is a much more realistic and balanced view than your strange little world, where Clinton can, apparantly, do no wrong, nor Bush nothing right.

[rjung]

Uh...oops. Sorry. :o There's the GD troop armor thread, and the Pit troop armor thread, and I got them mixed up.
To be fair, maybe Reeder can get a free pass the next time he calls Brutus an obscene name in GD. :D

[pervert]

We could quibble all night night about this. I was just refuting Moto's insane comment that the current admin has nothing to do with this situation.
I'm pretty sure he said no such thing. I suppose I have not committed to memory each and every post, so I could be wrong. But I think he merely pointed out that in order for the armor to have been available on time it would have had to have been ordered by teh Clinton administration.

Your the one who made the odd statement that you could have planned the war better. Although I suspect that you meant that you would not have gone to war at all rather than suggest that you could have provided the armor the Bush administration did not.

[Squink]

Meanwhile, in other efforts to ensure the safety of our troops, the administration is planning to collect the retinal patterns of all returning Fallujahns. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/05/returning_fallujans_will_face_clampdown/); fingerprints and DNA samples too. Marine commander Geeky McDoofus said of the program "It's like Humvee armor raised to the power of ten. The troops love the new level of security envisioned by this system."

I wonder who got the contract for the retinal scanners and database integration?

[Danalan]

Another soldier asked the same question 6 months ago -- of a General, with Rumsfeld standing right there. They said they'd take care of the problem. Lies and incompetence. Link (http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/120504.htm#121004)

People wonder why I'm so inflamed by this administration. Look up evil in the dictionary -- there's their picture!

[Sevastopol]

Let's get some perspective. Why is it a bad thing when the US troops don't have armour. It means more of them will be killed and injured.

How is that bad? Remember that the US forces are the criminals in this war. The individuals and body alike. They voted for the party who started it. Let them die, preferably in agony as well as the disgrace they so richly deserve.

Cowards, torturers and bloodlusting liars. Each blow against them is justice and will be supported by lovers of justice.

Donald Rumsfeld, I applaud your contempt of US service people. The same contempt all reasoning people must feel.

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

I do not wish to defend the actions of the Bush administration, but in direct reference to the OP, I think that Rumsfeld deserves a bit of respect for how he handled that particular question - no beating around the bush, no false promises, etc. A simple, direct and unambiguous reply which is in line with the administration's actions and current policy position.

It's a shame that the US military servicemen are in this situation, but they did all sign on the dotted line. As much as being insufficiently equipped is uncomfortable, to call it unjust is a stretch.

[LordVor]

But I think he merely pointed out that in order for the armor to have been available on time it would have had to have been ordered by teh Clinton administration.

In which case he'd still be full of it, as the factory was making 60/month a year ago, and upped production (in October? That's not quite clear) at the request of the army to it's current level of 450 a month. They say, conservatively, that they can go up to 500/month.

500-60 = 440/month, which is almost 5300 more vehicles a year than what they were building. The forces are currently 2000 vehicles short of what the commanders need. So if the formal request (and a big-assed check) had come a half a year earlier, they'd have all the armored humvees they need. Today.

Of course, all these facts weren't readily available when he made his first post, so I can understand his original line of thought.

BTW, Loach, I read what you said about what you can't comment on, read what points of mine you didn't comment on, and read between the lines. I think we understand each other.

-lv

[pervert]

In which case he'd still be full of it, as the factory was making 60/month a year ago, and upped production (in October? That's not quite clear) at the request of the army to it's current level of 450 a month. They say, conservatively, that they can go up to 500/month.

500-60 = 440/month, which is almost 5300 more vehicles a year than what they were building. The forces are currently 2000 vehicles short of what the commanders need. So if the formal request (and a big-assed check) had come a half a year earlier, they'd have all the armored humvees they need. Today.
Do we have a source that says that this capacity was available that long ago? My understanding was that the company has been increasing capcity for the last several months.

[TVeblen]

Let's get some perspective. Why is it a bad thing when the US troops don't have armour. It means more of them will be killed and injured.

How is that bad? Remember that the US forces are the criminals in this war. The individuals and body alike. They voted for the party who started it. Let them die, preferably in agony as well as the disgrace they so richly deserve.

Cowards, torturers and bloodlusting liars. Each blow against them is justice and will be supported by lovers of justice.

Donald Rumsfeld, I applaud your contempt of US service people. The same contempt all reasoning people must feel.

You just went right over the line, sevastapol, even for the Pit. Your strong opinons don't justify wishing that service people die in agony. You don't know how soldiers voted, and your extended accusation of criminality, bloodlust, etc. against people who voted differently from you is hateful, not to mention stupid.

If you can't argue with at least some semblence of sense and decency we will dispense with your presence here.

TVeblen
Pit mod

[LordVor]

Do we have a source that says that this capacity was available that long ago? My understanding was that the company has been increasing capcity for the last several months.

The company is producing about 450 armored Humvees per month, up from 50 in late 2003, when a sudden surge of attacks in Iraq exposed a lack of protective armor.

The company says that by February it could be producing as many as 550 fully armored Humvees per month -- with armor plates on the sides, front, rear, top, and bottom -- if given the go-ahead (from a previously cited article)

So, assuming a general ramp-up, that's a capacity of 400 vehicles added over, say, 11 months, and another 100 available over the next 2. That's adding capacity at an average of, say 40/month.

That's nothing short of astounding, for a company to be making 9 times as many as it was making last year. I have no doubt in my mind that if this is possible, then it would have been possible to start the ramp-up 6 months prior to when it did. In any case, for Clinton to have anything to do with this shortage, it would have to have taken 4 YEARS to ramp up production to today's levels, which is ridiculous to assume based on the rate that they did ramp up at.

-lv

[World Eater]

Pardon me, but I said nothing of the sort.

My mistake you're actually right for once. It was Loach

I do have some serious disagreements with the planning of this conflict but I do not see any way to blame the lack of armored HMMWVs on this administration

What I did say is that the previous administration had a hand in this as well, to refute your ludicrous assertion that Clinton's actions didn't matter, that that was all in the past.

Did Clinton make the decision to send the troops TO IRAQ without armor?

No that was Bush's choice. He looked at the state of the military, said it's ready, and sent them in. Hold him, not Clinton responsible ok?

Bush had plenty of time to get the armoring done. What is being done now (because of some wiseass grunt bring it up :rolleyes:) should have been done 2 fucking years ago. Being "unaware" that AH could produce more units is called incompetence. How many other things are they currently "unaware" of right now? Hell, for all we know there could be several other ways available to make more armor we're not "aware" of at the moment. Better hope another grunt publicly embarrasses a superior, it's the only way things get done. Btw

COLUMBUS, Ohio - At a time when some U.S. troops in Iraq are complaining they have to scrounge for equipment, six Ohio-based reservists were court-martialed for taking Army vehicles abandoned in Kuwait by other units so they could carry out their own unit's mission to Iraq.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10401608.htm

Nice eh?

This is a much more realistic and balanced view than your strange little world, where Clinton can, apparantly, do no wrong, nor Bush nothing right.

The funny thing is I couldn't stand Clinton, I didn't like him much either. I was actually more Republican 2000 and was happy Bush won, because I loathed Gore. I tend to do a wacky little thing called "judge each guy on his own merits". Because I do that, I don't really go Dem or Repub, I go with who I think is best. (these days the least of two evils :p )

[World Eater]

I'm very curious to see the usual suspects respond to getting a court martial due to vehicle cannibalization.

[LordVor]

I'm very curious to see the usual suspects respond to getting a court martial due to vehicle cannibalization.

I doubt I'm a "usual suspect", but from the account I read, that's an inaccurate description. It wasn't so much that they cannibalized, it was the fact that they didn't make any effort to return them to their original owners, and in fact obscured or destroyed identifying markings to make it impossible to find out who originally owned the equipment.

-lv

[World Eater]

Seems like the least of their worries over in that shithole.

[World Eater]

"Rumsfeld fires back at critics" 12/21/04

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142195,00.html

"The enemies we face today, for the most part, do not have large standing forces or, in some cases, even territory to defend. They know they cannot defeat us on the battlefield, so they choose to fight us in less-conventional ways — ways that play to their strengths, not ours," the secretary wrote.

Can it get anymore pathetic then this?

[ElvisL1ves]

You go to war against the enemies you have, not the enemies you might want or wish to have at a later time. That's why you prepare to do so.

The interesting part recently has been all the prominent Republican Senators sensing blood and beginning to circle. Perhaps they're growing spines again?

[dropzone]

What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have.Not entirely fair, as Harry had Shakespeare 'transcribing' him, but he was recorded as making the same points before the real battle. But which attitude would inspire you to do the best you could? Shit, I'd harrow Hell for the first guy!

[ElvisL1ves]

Not even the best choice of quotes from "Henry V", I'm afraid.For we know enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us. But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.


More pithily:
The buck stops here.

[rjung]

Can it get anymore pathetic then this?
Well, there's his boss, who's "really pleased" (http://www.lincolntribune.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=457) with such incompetence...

[World Eater]

From the link

"I've…heard the anguish in his voice and seen his eyes when he talks about…the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm's way," the president said. "He's a good, decent man. He's a caring fellow."

:::wretch:::

Caring? Get them some fucking armor you loser.